I also found, in one of the campaign analyses, a really good idea--and not just because it was apparently mine. (I honestly have no memory of it, but it was more than 30 years ago!) What I proposed was taking all of the Community Development Block Grant money allocated to SF's Redevelopment Agency and reallocating it to affordable housing projects. The person/people who wrote the report noted that this was a really good idea, and redevelopment-hating crosses political lines--as in, everyone hates them. I was so proud of my young self. Hmm, maybe we could make a dent in our affordable housing deficit by taking all the redevelopment money for the purpose. (Joke, folks. Don't expect Jerry Brown to do any such thing. The problem of affordable housing is always somewhere Jerry isn't.)
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Old Stuff
One of the things I've been doing in preparation for our move back to the Bay Area is cleaning out old files, junking magazines and journals I'll never read again (some of which go back to 1986, ferhevensake), and refiling stuff that I want to keep. I have, for instance, the Naming Ceremony for friend W's daughter, thank you cards from nephew H (although the best one of those is the one he sent when he was about three, informing me that he liked his gift because it was new), and a bunch of the drafts of Proposition R, the rent control/affordable housing initiative in 1979. Many of the drafts, which are really long, are undated, so I have no idea of the development. I'm tossing them all, unless someone wants them.
Monday, December 24, 2012
For Those of You
who missed it, the world is still here. J took this picture on the morning of the Solstice looking out our kitchen window. You can see the faint secondary to the right.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
No Child Left Behind
California's Department of Education is whining because the federal Education Department has refused to grant a waiver of the No Child Left Behind requirements for school improvement here. And that's as it should be.
Whatever the problems with the No Child Left Behind requirements, California has failed to improve the performance of low-income children, particularly African-American and Latino youth. One of the explanations raised for this is that the families of low-income students often rent their housing and are forced to move frequently. This disrupts not only their education, but that of their classmates, both because their education is disrupted as they move from school to school, and because integrating students into new classes takes time.
Yeah, and there's a way to deal with that problem. It's called secure housing for low-income families. It's building affordable housing. It's providing rent control and "just cause" eviction, so that families aren't precarious every month. So long as our state and local governments fail to address these issues, they should be punished for their failure. They aren't doing what needs to be done to insure that all children have equal access to education, which is a constitutional right in California.
The Department of Education should stop whining, and demand that the state provide the resources for all children to learn.
Whatever the problems with the No Child Left Behind requirements, California has failed to improve the performance of low-income children, particularly African-American and Latino youth. One of the explanations raised for this is that the families of low-income students often rent their housing and are forced to move frequently. This disrupts not only their education, but that of their classmates, both because their education is disrupted as they move from school to school, and because integrating students into new classes takes time.
Yeah, and there's a way to deal with that problem. It's called secure housing for low-income families. It's building affordable housing. It's providing rent control and "just cause" eviction, so that families aren't precarious every month. So long as our state and local governments fail to address these issues, they should be punished for their failure. They aren't doing what needs to be done to insure that all children have equal access to education, which is a constitutional right in California.
The Department of Education should stop whining, and demand that the state provide the resources for all children to learn.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Newtown
I'm proud to be a member of a group that is overwhelmingly in favor of gun control. The vast majority of Jewish Americans don't think that having an assault weapon at home is a good idea. Not all of them though. There are some who argue things like, "what about the Warsaw ghetto uprising," which only shows up their lack of knowledge of history. The Warsaw Ghetto didn't rise up because Jews there had weaponry when other Jewish communities didn't, but because the religious community joined with the secular left, and then managed to obtain what weaponry they needed. It was a political rebellion, not a military one.
But I'm ashamed of my government. It's not the right time to talk about gun control and mental health. Not after some kid with mental health issues kills 18 younger kids at an elementary school? Really? Then when is the time? Oh, that's right, never.
I'm proud to be an entirely unarmed American--no assault rifle, no handgun, not even a baseball bat. That way, my husband won't get shot because I mistake him for an intruder in the middle of the night, and no kid suffering from mental illness will kill 18 children because he managed to steal my non-existent gun.
Two additional notes:
First it's not a good thing to have armed teachers. Yeah, keep your loaded gun in your desk drawer in a room full of curious eight-year-olds. Uh-huh. Yeah, have a shootout with a guy with an assault rifle in a room full of kids. Where do we get people who can't figure out why that's a bad idea? I find it irritating that people don't understand what a marginal tax rate is, but really, this doesn't require any numeracy at all.
Second, now we know why teachers get tenure and retirement packages. They're an unarmed line of defense for our kids. In a crisis they keep their heads. They shoo the kids into a closet and lock the door. They face the assailant. They're the ones who decide to lock the classroom door and get the kids to a safe corner, or to make a run to safety.
But I'm ashamed of my government. It's not the right time to talk about gun control and mental health. Not after some kid with mental health issues kills 18 younger kids at an elementary school? Really? Then when is the time? Oh, that's right, never.
I'm proud to be an entirely unarmed American--no assault rifle, no handgun, not even a baseball bat. That way, my husband won't get shot because I mistake him for an intruder in the middle of the night, and no kid suffering from mental illness will kill 18 children because he managed to steal my non-existent gun.
Two additional notes:
First it's not a good thing to have armed teachers. Yeah, keep your loaded gun in your desk drawer in a room full of curious eight-year-olds. Uh-huh. Yeah, have a shootout with a guy with an assault rifle in a room full of kids. Where do we get people who can't figure out why that's a bad idea? I find it irritating that people don't understand what a marginal tax rate is, but really, this doesn't require any numeracy at all.
Second, now we know why teachers get tenure and retirement packages. They're an unarmed line of defense for our kids. In a crisis they keep their heads. They shoo the kids into a closet and lock the door. They face the assailant. They're the ones who decide to lock the classroom door and get the kids to a safe corner, or to make a run to safety.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Military Fun
And here we thought those people just ran around with short haircuts, launching drone attacks on weddings, trying to communicate with people without speaking their language, and so on. But no, they're having fun with one another, and then emailing about it. Who knew?
Friday, November 16, 2012
Judge Judy, the Exemplar Neoliberal
One of the unfortunate things about arthritic knees is daytime television. Not the good stuff like old episodes of Perry Mason or book interviews on C-SPAN, but crap like Judge Judy. For those of you who've been living in a cave for the last 15 years or so, Judge Judy is one of the many TV judges who arbitrate small claims' actions from around the country. It looks like real court with a real judge, but it's not.
While Judith Sheindlin makes $45 million a year playing Judge Judy, the rest of the participants don't fare so well. The litigants get about $500 for their appearance, as well as plane fare, hotel and maybe a meal or two. That's a pittance for allowing yourself to be humiliated on TV, but if you look at the condition of the litigants, you can see why it happens. Many of them work in one of the low-paid occupations so prevalent in our society. Others are unemployed or disabled and surviving on next to nothing. So a little TV humiliation for $500 looks pretty good.
In addition, the show pays the judgment. What this means is that you can sue family or friends knowing that your family member or friend won't have to pay up. So you may be doing a good deed--repaying a loan, fixing a car etc.--that wouldn't be paid if you didn't allow yourself to be be trashed. In some cases I suspect that the judgment will be redistributed, so that both parties will benefit. Makes you feel better about the litigants already, doesn't it?
You don't get regular collection cases, or those where tenants in foreclosed properties are suing for their deposits, or the like. Those cases most often go to real Small Claims, as they should. Tenants, in particular, should avoid Judge Judy. The warranty of habitability is entirely foreign to her, and I've yet to see her say something like, "you were charging $800 a month for this hovel!"
But it doesn't make you feel good about Judge Judy. That's because, instead of understanding why people would tolerate her abuse and behaving in a somewhat more respectful manner, recognizing that the abundance of poor people in our society enable her to make her $45 million a year, she heaps on the abuse. Don't have a job? Well, get one. Don't have a good enough job? Well, that's your poor choice. Lent your scuzzy boyfriend or girlfriend money? Tough luck, since you weren't married. Bought a car for a couple thousand that needed a new transmission? Another poor choice, even if you were desperate for a car to get to work.
Some cases are interesting tours of life among the poorest 30%. I've never seen so many hovels rented for so much money, and Judy, as I noted above, doesn't have much respect for the warranty of habitability. If you live there, you pay rent, no matter what the condition of the premises. I also discovered why a car that costs, say, $4K, is not a good idea. The transmission is about to go, and will within three weeks of the purchase. (But that's the value you're allowed under TANF rules.) Judge Judy isn't fond of the disabled either, particularly those with mental illness.
And numeracy is not her strong suit, but an amazing number of our fellows seem to have the same problem. In one case she wanted a young mother to send her infant to childcare, get a job, and go to school. Uh, this young woman would pay more for childcare than she would make in wages. Not a viable plan.
But what I love about Judge Judy is that it's the elite vs. the rest of us writ small. You don't have to read long tomes on economic inequality, the high cost of almost anything. Just watch a few episodes of Judge Judy and you'll have it down.
An interesting note: In my area the majority of the advertisers funding Judge Judy are the for-profit schools that prey on low-income people, and rely on federal loans taken out by those low-income students to pay for mediocre education, leading to low-paying jobs and a lot of debt. I hope that the people watching Judge Judy aren't encouraged to improve themselves by taking on loans for these schools, which exist only because of government funding.
And another note: While Judge Judy may impose her petty moralism on others, she's much more, shall we say, flexible with respect to her own behavior. Her producer is involved in a messy divorce and, as part of the messiness, the producer sold the former judge a set of dishes and flatware--a very expensive set of dishes and flatware--at a discount. A big discount. Well, the producer's wife sued Judge Judy to get the property restored to the community.
Did Judge Judy do what any normal person would have done, which is to restore the property to the community, get her money back and swear never to get involved in this kind of mess again? No. She sought to justify her behavior by claiming that the wife should be looking for a job instead of suing her. This, unfortunately, leads me to believe that Judge Judy knew what her producer was doing and was sanctioning his conduct. Oh, how I wish I could lecture her from the "bench".
While Judith Sheindlin makes $45 million a year playing Judge Judy, the rest of the participants don't fare so well. The litigants get about $500 for their appearance, as well as plane fare, hotel and maybe a meal or two. That's a pittance for allowing yourself to be humiliated on TV, but if you look at the condition of the litigants, you can see why it happens. Many of them work in one of the low-paid occupations so prevalent in our society. Others are unemployed or disabled and surviving on next to nothing. So a little TV humiliation for $500 looks pretty good.
In addition, the show pays the judgment. What this means is that you can sue family or friends knowing that your family member or friend won't have to pay up. So you may be doing a good deed--repaying a loan, fixing a car etc.--that wouldn't be paid if you didn't allow yourself to be be trashed. In some cases I suspect that the judgment will be redistributed, so that both parties will benefit. Makes you feel better about the litigants already, doesn't it?
You don't get regular collection cases, or those where tenants in foreclosed properties are suing for their deposits, or the like. Those cases most often go to real Small Claims, as they should. Tenants, in particular, should avoid Judge Judy. The warranty of habitability is entirely foreign to her, and I've yet to see her say something like, "you were charging $800 a month for this hovel!"
But it doesn't make you feel good about Judge Judy. That's because, instead of understanding why people would tolerate her abuse and behaving in a somewhat more respectful manner, recognizing that the abundance of poor people in our society enable her to make her $45 million a year, she heaps on the abuse. Don't have a job? Well, get one. Don't have a good enough job? Well, that's your poor choice. Lent your scuzzy boyfriend or girlfriend money? Tough luck, since you weren't married. Bought a car for a couple thousand that needed a new transmission? Another poor choice, even if you were desperate for a car to get to work.
Some cases are interesting tours of life among the poorest 30%. I've never seen so many hovels rented for so much money, and Judy, as I noted above, doesn't have much respect for the warranty of habitability. If you live there, you pay rent, no matter what the condition of the premises. I also discovered why a car that costs, say, $4K, is not a good idea. The transmission is about to go, and will within three weeks of the purchase. (But that's the value you're allowed under TANF rules.) Judge Judy isn't fond of the disabled either, particularly those with mental illness.
And numeracy is not her strong suit, but an amazing number of our fellows seem to have the same problem. In one case she wanted a young mother to send her infant to childcare, get a job, and go to school. Uh, this young woman would pay more for childcare than she would make in wages. Not a viable plan.
But what I love about Judge Judy is that it's the elite vs. the rest of us writ small. You don't have to read long tomes on economic inequality, the high cost of almost anything. Just watch a few episodes of Judge Judy and you'll have it down.
An interesting note: In my area the majority of the advertisers funding Judge Judy are the for-profit schools that prey on low-income people, and rely on federal loans taken out by those low-income students to pay for mediocre education, leading to low-paying jobs and a lot of debt. I hope that the people watching Judge Judy aren't encouraged to improve themselves by taking on loans for these schools, which exist only because of government funding.
And another note: While Judge Judy may impose her petty moralism on others, she's much more, shall we say, flexible with respect to her own behavior. Her producer is involved in a messy divorce and, as part of the messiness, the producer sold the former judge a set of dishes and flatware--a very expensive set of dishes and flatware--at a discount. A big discount. Well, the producer's wife sued Judge Judy to get the property restored to the community.
Did Judge Judy do what any normal person would have done, which is to restore the property to the community, get her money back and swear never to get involved in this kind of mess again? No. She sought to justify her behavior by claiming that the wife should be looking for a job instead of suing her. This, unfortunately, leads me to believe that Judge Judy knew what her producer was doing and was sanctioning his conduct. Oh, how I wish I could lecture her from the "bench".
Monday, November 12, 2012
North Carolina
My niece lives in North Carolina, and I've teased her (gently) about the unfortunate results there. But I can inform her, via Rachel Maddow, that women in North Carolina voted for Obama. So she is redeemed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
